Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

What do we think the next Total War game will be?

2

Comments

  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178
    With a release date of 2023 from what I can see that seems far too short a time line for CA to make it unless they had inside info on it and as his last historical film flopped doesn't really seem a great horse to pin a game on.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431

    It coud be "SAGA" title

    Well, but I think the people generaly want Empire 2 more than Napoleon 2

    Good point, I didn't think of that at the time.
  • #272868#272868 Registered Users Posts: 1
    Personally with everything they've already done I feel they are well placed to do something kinda new.
    What I would love to see is Total War: Khan. A historical game on the scale of Mediaeval 2 but set in the east. They've done multiple iterations of Shogun and they've done Three Kingdoms. If they did a setting that encompassed feudal Japan, Korea, China etc during the rise of the Mongol Empire would be amazing. The cultural variety could be fantastic, but they've still got so much content they have already fine tuned with previous iterations they can lean on.
    Could have a game that has cultures that span from Japan and Korea to India and Persia, and from Mongolia all the way down to Vietnam, Thailand and even the kingdom of Java! So many different cultures that could provide a good unit variety and cultural mix, but still a completely historical setting and a broad setting they have never done before.
  • aradragoon#4957aradragoon#4957 Registered Users Posts: 1
    I disagree with most of the people here.

    I think the game that CA has best positioned themselves for is a Total War: Victoria type of game. This could easily be worldwide as well.

    My reasoning for this is the new gameplay mechanics TW:WH has introduced.

    First we have some typical mechanics that were still used and tweaked. Things like melee units fighting early guns. We also still have artillery, both direct and indirect fire. Then we have the usage of cavalry, traditionally melee, lancers, and ranged. Skirmisher ranged units etc. This allows for progression through the era with mechanics already in earlier games that have been expanded and tweaked.

    What we have in addition to all this, though, are tanks, expanded artillery (organ guns as an example), flamethrowers, flying units (helicopters, heros on pegasus, dragons, etc.) which position the ability to turn those into aircraft or balloons, and if we incorporate and tweak Shogun 2 FOTS we can get naval from 1800 to WW1. This means the error for the 20th century is possible and has been tested in the fantasy setting.

    The one argument I could see against this is that the team that did WH is most likely not involved with this new title. Still I would argue that at the least Empire 2, if not Victorian era, are the best places to move forward in order to continue to make use of these new mechanics and features.

    I would be worried if they did futuristic games (like 40k) due to features that weren't present in WH like proper naval combat.

    Just my $.02 though.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,082

    I disagree with most of the people here.

    I think the game that CA has best positioned themselves for is a Total War: Victoria type of game. This could easily be worldwide as well.

    My reasoning for this is the new gameplay mechanics TW:WH has introduced.

    First we have some typical mechanics that were still used and tweaked. Things like melee units fighting early guns. We also still have artillery, both direct and indirect fire. Then we have the usage of cavalry, traditionally melee, lancers, and ranged. Skirmisher ranged units etc. This allows for progression through the era with mechanics already in earlier games that have been expanded and tweaked.

    What we have in addition to all this, though, are tanks, expanded artillery (organ guns as an example), flamethrowers, flying units (helicopters, heros on pegasus, dragons, etc.) which position the ability to turn those into aircraft or balloons, and if we incorporate and tweak Shogun 2 FOTS we can get naval from 1800 to WW1. This means the error for the 20th century is possible and has been tested in the fantasy setting.

    The one argument I could see against this is that the team that did WH is most likely not involved with this new title. Still I would argue that at the least Empire 2, if not Victorian era, are the best places to move forward in order to continue to make use of these new mechanics and features.

    I would be worried if they did futuristic games (like 40k) due to features that weren't present in WH like proper naval combat.

    Just my $.02 though.

    I think tanks and especially helicopters take us well outside the Victoria period.

    I don’t see any major issues with Victoria in itself as the way the Victorian weapons interact has already been proven in FotS. It would just be a case of copy and pasting the majority of weapons from FotS

    The use of the European model throughout would be fine because as long as the game is good in general people are less concerned with highly different armies, be it Shogun 1 and 2, Empire, Napoleon and 3K.

    Interactions with more unique races like Māori, Qing and Zulu forces for example could be done through narrative DLCs similar to the Native American DLC in Empire. Further more, certain theatres could be deemed ‘special’ requiring support and finances which are highly controlled by the government. This would stop huge armies from overpowering natives and a similar situation to the reality for the race to Africa and the colonisation of Australia and New Zealand.

    I agree, a global map could arrive via DLC such as a Race for Africa DLC, a Boxer Rebellion DLC etc. this would allow for new narratives and factions.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178

    I disagree with most of the people here.

    I think the game that CA has best positioned themselves for is a Total War: Victoria type of game. This could easily be worldwide as well.

    My reasoning for this is the new gameplay mechanics TW:WH has introduced.

    First we have some typical mechanics that were still used and tweaked. Things like melee units fighting early guns. We also still have artillery, both direct and indirect fire. Then we have the usage of cavalry, traditionally melee, lancers, and ranged. Skirmisher ranged units etc. This allows for progression through the era with mechanics already in earlier games that have been expanded and tweaked.

    What we have in addition to all this, though, are tanks, expanded artillery (organ guns as an example), flamethrowers, flying units (helicopters, heros on pegasus, dragons, etc.) which position the ability to turn those into aircraft or balloons, and if we incorporate and tweak Shogun 2 FOTS we can get naval from 1800 to WW1. This means the error for the 20th century is possible and has been tested in the fantasy setting.

    The one argument I could see against this is that the team that did WH is most likely not involved with this new title. Still I would argue that at the least Empire 2, if not Victorian era, are the best places to move forward in order to continue to make use of these new mechanics and features.

    I would be worried if they did futuristic games (like 40k) due to features that weren't present in WH like proper naval combat.

    Just my $.02 though.

    Not unless CA has been holding themselves back for all their history. Even the combined campaign of WH3 is still far too short for our globe on a scale that wont cause the community to go nuts.

    The WH mechanics really don't fit it. The standard units have worked that way for a long time, we've had multiple games showing how to use the range of units with gun equipped units. As shown with FotS we've had the battle mechanics for it. Although still short of doing the full scale and tech changes that the Naval arms race of the time covered.

    Tanks and flying units aren't part of it. They weren't used in the Victorian era so that addition doesn't bring anything. Lack of development of things such as trains would be as they did play a big role. Armoured cars do appear at the end of it, but the WHF system doesn't fit it, looking at the siege weapons and their counters would be a better one but instead of it being fire projectiles it's higher power firearms.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431


    Not unless CA has been holding themselves back for all their history. Even the combined campaign of WH3 is still far too short for our globe on a scale that wont cause the community to go nuts.

    The WH mechanics really don't fit it. The standard units have worked that way for a long time, we've had multiple games showing how to use the range of units with gun equipped units. As shown with FotS we've had the battle mechanics for it. Although still short of doing the full scale and tech changes that the Naval arms race of the time covered.

    Tanks and flying units aren't part of it. They weren't used in the Victorian era so that addition doesn't bring anything. Lack of development of things such as trains would be as they did play a big role. Armoured cars do appear at the end of it, but the WHF system doesn't fit it, looking at the siege weapons and their counters would be a better one but instead of it being fire projectiles it's higher power firearms.

    Well, I think you both kind of have a point, in that FotS was technically in the Victorian era, even though it couldn't go too far, as it was JUST an expansion of Shogun 2.

    And I honestly think that stuff like armored cars and trains seem like super gimmicky types of things that would either not be all that truly useful or they could be pretty OP, but I think that the armored cars at least feel like something that should be in Company of Heroes rather than a TW game.


    I've said this before and I'll say it again.

    This is why an Empire 2 is far superior to a Victorian TW, as the level of technology of mainly the 1700s does advance and all, but not so much so that the stupidity of only certain factions being viable in the mid to late game if at all happens.

    And before we get into this again, I will point out 2 things.

    1. You CAN NOT dismiss or downplay the fact that the TW games ARE SANDBOX games just because you love historical accuracy too much.

    ALL the playable factions SHOULD be viable in their own way.

    2. If you really want to debate the whole Empire 2 thing, let's take it to my Empire 2 thread, as I don't really want to take over another thread because you don't want to admit to any points I may make.


    But otherwise, I do know that the more "limited" technology of the 1700s would make for a far more interesting TW game then whatever pre modern stuff that would come from the Victorian era.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178

    Well, I think you both kind of have a point, in that FotS was technically in the Victorian era, even though it couldn't go too far, as it was JUST an expansion of Shogun 2.

    And I honestly think that stuff like armored cars and trains seem like super gimmicky types of things that would either not be all that truly useful or they could be pretty OP, but I think that the armored cars at least feel like something that should be in Company of Heroes rather than a TW game.


    ....

    1. You CAN NOT dismiss or downplay the fact that the TW games ARE SANDBOX games just because you love historical accuracy too much.

    ALL the playable factions SHOULD be viable in their own way.

    FotS expansion covered the Victorian tec of the era just fine. Heck it went well past it with the bombardment, the world wouldn't see that style till late WW2.

    Armoured cars yeah would be an extremely late game gimmick unit. Rather bad on most of the map but of use in flat lands and cities.

    Trains played a huge role in a number of wars that the period would be expected to cover such as the US civil war and the Franco-Prussian war. But it runs the issue of the map being so large in scale that the importance of such investments in these tiny parts of the world become rather worthless and trivialised. Less how we see them in FotS and more just old road upgrades.

    The sandbox is which factions rise and fall, not where in the entire history of technology they pull things from.

    All playable factions in the TWs have all been viable from my experience. It's a requirement to be playable. Why the Native Americans weren't playable in Empire 1 they weren't viable on the full campaign but could get their own focused one, similar limitations would apply fro groups in the Victorian period like the Zulus and Maori. Although just being "viable" doesn't mean they are all the same difficulty, their historical issues are used as part of their campaign and starting point.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,082

    Well, I think you both kind of have a point, in that FotS was technically in the Victorian era, even though it couldn't go too far, as it was JUST an expansion of Shogun 2.

    And I honestly think that stuff like armored cars and trains seem like super gimmicky types of things that would either not be all that truly useful or they could be pretty OP, but I think that the armored cars at least feel like something that should be in Company of Heroes rather than a TW game.


    ....

    1. You CAN NOT dismiss or downplay the fact that the TW games ARE SANDBOX games just because you love historical accuracy too much.

    ALL the playable factions SHOULD be viable in their own way.

    FotS expansion covered the Victorian tec of the era just fine. Heck it went well past it with the bombardment, the world wouldn't see that style till late WW2.

    Armoured cars yeah would be an extremely late game gimmick unit. Rather bad on most of the map but of use in flat lands and cities.

    Trains played a huge role in a number of wars that the period would be expected to cover such as the US civil war and the Franco-Prussian war. But it runs the issue of the map being so large in scale that the importance of such investments in these tiny parts of the world become rather worthless and trivialised. Less how we see them in FotS and more just old road upgrades.

    The sandbox is which factions rise and fall, not where in the entire history of technology they pull things from.

    All playable factions in the TWs have all been viable from my experience. It's a requirement to be playable. Why the Native Americans weren't playable in Empire 1 they weren't viable on the full campaign but could get their own focused one, similar limitations would apply fro groups in the Victorian period like the Zulus and Maori. Although just being "viable" doesn't mean they are all the same difficulty, their historical issues are used as part of their campaign and starting point.
    I agree. Overall Victoria is a viable game but, requires some good use of mechanics and balancing to make it truly substantial. I think one of the main issues is the more complex or larger a game is the more challenging it is to control and balance. This to me is one of the biggest challenges for a game like WH as the races are vastly different. In games like Shogun it was much easier to balance the various factions due to slight differences between them, which could be tweaked as required.

    Ideally this is why I think they’d more likely go with the Euro model overall with some slightly more specialised versions like the Japanese model (a mixture of old melee and modern) and a Turkish and Egyptian faction. Although Egypt was controlled by Turkey this was only in name.

    Famous confrontations of this period are quite easy to recreate via DLC, with one issue. Since the combined map of WHTW people want that large experience rather than a limited small look at a particular narrative. I do think if these narratives are gone well and the minor faction in turn added to the main map then it could certainly help to enrich the experience. Add to that a system is created that allows the Zulus, Qing or even the Māori to be turned into a more viable local power to allow the player to at least allow them to take control of their local area.

    Areas like Africa could be controlled via a strict political system with the government allowing small excursions and allowing further support as the player makes gains through the accusation of local resources and victories. This would stop any steam rolling of narrative areas. Bonuses could be applied so Britain naturally goes to face the Zulus and France goes for North Africa. This system, can’t really be judged accurately because it exists in my head only, but for me there’s are a few options and it depends how CA approaches it.

    Trains could be applied like they were in FotS as a way of moving troops around quickly, it was an interesting late tech which could be given early on in major industrialised areas.

    Although we can never know how viable Victoria is compared to other options at the very least I’d say it’s viable.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431

    Well, I would agree aside from the fact that most of the stuff for FotS was taken from Napoleon, such as animations and all that. But that's almost a topic for it's own thread.

    And I know that the use of trains was a big part of what helped the Prussians win the Franco-Prussian War, but I was more so talking about trains and such things somehow being turned into battlefield assets, which I just think would be far too gimmicky in just how much they could really be used.


    That's not entirely true dude. The part about what the TW sandbox is supposed to be that is.

    I mean, if that was the case, then why have factions like the Gauls and Carthage be playable in Rome 2? Because they lost their wars against Rome, so what's the point of having them be playable?

    My point is, that I simply don't want to see factions such as the Qing in China or the Native American Tribes be little more than one trick pony factions and armies that will ALWAYS get destroyed by the European factions just because that's how history played out, no matter how well a player plays them.

    I don't want to see the Native American Tribes in an Empire 2 to just be a repeat of what they were in Empire 1, which was pretty much JUST one dimensional melee rush armies.

    Because I actually really like the idea of the Native American armies as a whole going from the use of basic guerilla tactics and such using tons of strictly melee fighters and such to using a lot more firearms in their armies. I would actually really like to see units like the old Warrior Society units be able to be upgraded from an elite melee infantry unit to an elite light infantry unit that is still very good in melee.

    I just don't want a Empire 2 to just be solely focused on ONLY the European factions, as that would get very boring very quickly.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178

    I agree. Overall Victoria is a viable game but, requires some good use of mechanics and balancing to make it truly substantial. I think one of the main issues is the more complex or larger a game is the more challenging it is to control and balance. This to me is one of the biggest challenges for a game like WH as the races are vastly different. In games like Shogun it was much easier to balance the various factions due to slight differences between them, which could be tweaked as required.

    Ideally this is why I think they’d more likely go with the Euro model overall with some slightly more specialised versions like the Japanese model (a mixture of old melee and modern) and a Turkish and Egyptian faction. Although Egypt was controlled by Turkey this was only in name.

    Famous confrontations of this period are quite easy to recreate via DLC, with one issue. Since the combined map of WHTW people want that large experience rather than a limited small look at a particular narrative. I do think if these narratives are gone well and the minor faction in turn added to the main map then it could certainly help to enrich the experience. Add to that a system is created that allows the Zulus, Qing or even the Māori to be turned into a more viable local power to allow the player to at least allow them to take control of their local area.

    Areas like Africa could be controlled via a strict political system with the government allowing small excursions and allowing further support as the player makes gains through the accusation of local resources and victories. This would stop any steam rolling of narrative areas. Bonuses could be applied so Britain naturally goes to face the Zulus and France goes for North Africa. This system, can’t really be judged accurately because it exists in my head only, but for me there’s are a few options and it depends how CA approaches it.

    Trains could be applied like they were in FotS as a way of moving troops around quickly, it was an interesting late tech which could be given early on in major industrialised areas.

    Although we can never know how viable Victoria is compared to other options at the very least I’d say it’s viable.

    Yeah balancing will be a problem, they have made good strides with the 3K mechanics though for that. So taking it they resolve the other issues such as the province count that could open up easier balancing. It's effectively taking the Paradox style I guess.

    Bring back the zoning of Empire, have Europe be more detailed like is rather typical of grand strat games and then that brings about some of the periods options for the great powers to try and balance each other. Sending one of your limited armies all the way to Africa to take a backwater province, building it up to have enough supply gives your rivals a chance else where. They invest in their economy in Europe and send an army to take a local province and before you know it there's an Imperial Germany kicking France. Helps keep it a bit more organic I guess.

    Yeah most factions would be either what's viewed as modern or modernising. Probably lack factions in Asia and Africa for the most part but there are plenty of nations that could be done for Europe and the Americas. Interesting take could be the new vassal system, India was technically under the control of the East India Company at the start.

    It is the issue I have with it, the side campaigns tend to be interesting but often a bit lacking. Without adding to the grand campaign they become borderline stand-alone games which is a bit disappointing. Does seem CAs tried to go away from that and move to the grand campaign set up such as the map expansions and start dates. But will still have limitations: going to be hard to include that many provinces for Italy to cover their war of unification or make things such as railways important in the ACW. Rivers might be hard to do as well, thinking of the R2 rivers like the Rhine where you could sail fleets up, going to be funny with a fleet of pre-dreadnoughts in the late game lol although that could be fixed with naval terrain, we have coastal and open ocean atm so make shallows maybe so deep drafts take penalties.

    Problem is the size of the map. It doesn't quite work that way if you don't have the province count. Also runs the issue of where they run, you would have them run all over the nation by the end, you'd want to be able to move quickly between the cities, the ports and your borders. it also wasn't the most user friendly system personally. Could also have issues with increasing it's scale as the time frame goes on. Techs making it quicker as new trains come in which should be easy to implement.

    ...

    Animations aren't really a limit of it, think they didn't even bother porting them for WHs firearms.

    Never said they would be. Could be a unique map asset if ambushed on a railway but that's just a terrain element like houses or the boats in the ports in 3K.

    No that is what it is. They lost but as the sandbox element is which factions will rise and fall, they hadn't been wiped out at the start of the game so can rise up and become the dominant power(s).

    And as I said previously they don't depending on how all the factions go. Just like in Empire TW the natives often don't get wiped out and sometimes do become local powers (had one game where Pueblo wiped the Spanish out from the North lol). But still they are going to be limited as none playable factions don't get huge amounts of detail and their main role will be early game threats.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431


    Animations aren't really a limit of it, think they didn't even bother porting them for WHs firearms.

    Never said they would be. Could be a unique map asset if ambushed on a railway but that's just a terrain element like houses or the boats in the ports in 3K.

    No that is what it is. They lost but as the sandbox element is which factions will rise and fall, they hadn't been wiped out at the start of the game so can rise up and become the dominant power(s).

    And as I said previously they don't depending on how all the factions go. Just like in Empire TW the natives often don't get wiped out and sometimes do become local powers (had one game where Pueblo wiped the Spanish out from the North lol). But still they are going to be limited as none playable factions don't get huge amounts of detail and their main role will be early game threats.

    Well, I was more so talking about the animations in FotS not really being completely new stuff rather then it limiting anything.

    Well, I just think that even then, trains and such might be a little too gimmicky to be worth adding in if they can only be useful in certain ways.


    And I'm going to be completely blunt dude.


    That would just be plain dumb (to say the least) for CA to do that with an Empire 2.

    If that was the case, they might as well restrict the map to the whole Rome 2 map around the Mediterranean and Europe areas and just have the factions there fight each other and that's it.


    The whole POINT of an Empire 2 would be to eventually make a nearly global TW campaign that allows you to play as many different factions, such as the Qing and various Native American tribes and be able rise them up to challenge their rivals, even the European factions, like how you can beat Rome as Carthage and the Gauls in the Roman era TW games.

    And that doesn't mean they all have to just copy the European factions' armies unit for unit.

    The playable Native American tribes could go from a lot of stuff not dissimilar to what they had Empire 1, that being the use of a lot of melee and bow infantry and some cavalry, to much wider use of firearms, but in the form of lots of quick light infantry and firearm equipped cavalry who are still pretty skilled in melee.

    The Qing on the other hand could and should be able to create their own artillery, as they did make use of artillery that was more than just Wooden Cannons from Shogun 2, during the 1700s. And while not having line infantry, they could easily make use of light infantry armed with firearms, as well has having them have access to some very high quality Manchu/Mongolian cavalry, especially horse archers.

    Again, the whole point of these factions in the TW SANDBOX is to both make all the DLC for such a game really worthwhile as well as make them interesting factions to play without them all being the same things. It's basic TW rules.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178

    Well, I was more so talking about the animations in FotS not really being completely new stuff rather then it limiting anything.

    Well, I just think that even then, trains and such might be a little too gimmicky to be worth adding in if they can only be useful in certain ways.


    And I'm going to be completely blunt dude.


    That would just be plain dumb (to say the least) for CA to do that with an Empire 2.

    If that was the case, they might as well restrict the map to the whole Rome 2 map around the Mediterranean and Europe areas and just have the factions there fight each other and that's it.


    The whole POINT of an Empire 2 would be to eventually make a nearly global TW campaign that allows you to play as many different factions, such as the Qing and various Native American tribes and be able rise them up to challenge their rivals, even the European factions, like how you can beat Rome as Carthage and the Gauls in the Roman era TW games.

    And that doesn't mean they all have to just copy the European factions' armies unit for unit.

    The playable Native American tribes could go from a lot of stuff not dissimilar to what they had Empire 1, that being the use of a lot of melee and bow infantry and some cavalry, to much wider use of firearms, but in the form of lots of quick light infantry and firearm equipped cavalry who are still pretty skilled in melee.

    The Qing on the other hand could and should be able to create their own artillery, as they did make use of artillery that was more than just Wooden Cannons from Shogun 2, during the 1700s. And while not having line infantry, they could easily make use of light infantry armed with firearms, as well has having them have access to some very high quality Manchu/Mongolian cavalry, especially horse archers.

    Again, the whole point of these factions in the TW SANDBOX is to both make all the DLC for such a game really worthwhile as well as make them interesting factions to play without them all being the same things. It's basic TW rules.

    Which wasn't an issue of it being tied to S2. It comes down to their investment as animations do take a while and cost more money, although I think CA did buy a motion tracking studio a few years ago so should have a decent catalogue of recorded animations to help now.

    It's how they work, their main role isn't on the battlefield but on the campaign map. Being able to move men and supplies quicker and further per turn is a rather popular item, people don't want to sit around waiting for the supplies to build up and want their armies to move as quick as far as possible in a turn.

    For you it might, for the setting it makes sense. Why they did it with the first Empire TW. The Native Americans aren't and wouldn't be able to become a viable faction, why they got their own side campaign and even then are a pain to play as. Qing still makes no sense to add to expand to with the time frame, but was making wide use of cannon and small arms for quite a while before the start and was trying to develop European equivalent equipment.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431


    For you it might, for the setting it makes sense. Why they did it with the first Empire TW. The Native Americans aren't and wouldn't be able to become a viable faction, why they got their own side campaign and even then are a pain to play as. Qing still makes no sense to add to expand to with the time frame, but was making wide use of cannon and small arms for quite a while before the start and was trying to develop European equivalent equipment.

    Dude, that's just kind of a ridiculous view to have about it.

    Of course CA isn't just going repeat what they did in Empire 1, as even the European factions were really limited by how limited the game engine and all that was back then. That's why the Native American factions sucked in Empire 1, because they couldn't do all that much but melee rush armies.

    My point is that CA will be able to do a LOT more with factions like the Qing or Native American tribes in an Empire 2 then they did in Empire 1, and that they won't just be NPC enemies to kill in far off lands.

    And I'm mainly thinking of the Empire 2 starting in the very late 1600s, like 1696 or so, and going to 1800 or 1812 at the latest.


    The Native American tribe factions SHOULD be forced to adapt and learn toward use more guerilla tactics and such with their armies, as that's not only how they changed their tactics historically, but it would also provide players with a much different playstyle to that of the Europeans, as it should be.

    And it's not like I want the Qing or other non European factions to rely on giant rushes of melee infantry or stuff like that either. I would actually like to see a faction like the Qing only have like 3 or 4 melee infantry at most, which would be more than enough for use in assaults and such, but that shouldn't be all they have.

    The point is that the Qing should be able to at least advance enough to where they can actually force European armies to have not completely one sided artillery duels that can leave stuff like their high quality cavalry to be able to be used effectively.


    The point is that stuff like the Qing, Mughals, and the Native American factions could and should all be their own unique playable factions in a Empire 2 as such a thing would allow for players to have actual different experiences playing them.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,082

    I agree. Overall Victoria is a viable game but, requires some good use of mechanics and balancing to make it truly substantial. I think one of the main issues is the more complex or larger a game is the more challenging it is to control and balance. This to me is one of the biggest challenges for a game like WH as the races are vastly different. In games like Shogun it was much easier to balance the various factions due to slight differences between them, which could be tweaked as required.

    Ideally this is why I think they’d more likely go with the Euro model overall with some slightly more specialised versions like the Japanese model (a mixture of old melee and modern) and a Turkish and Egyptian faction. Although Egypt was controlled by Turkey this was only in name.

    Famous confrontations of this period are quite easy to recreate via DLC, with one issue. Since the combined map of WHTW people want that large experience rather than a limited small look at a particular narrative. I do think if these narratives are gone well and the minor faction in turn added to the main map then it could certainly help to enrich the experience. Add to that a system is created that allows the Zulus, Qing or even the Māori to be turned into a more viable local power to allow the player to at least allow them to take control of their local area.

    Areas like Africa could be controlled via a strict political system with the government allowing small excursions and allowing further support as the player makes gains through the accusation of local resources and victories. This would stop any steam rolling of narrative areas. Bonuses could be applied so Britain naturally goes to face the Zulus and France goes for North Africa. This system, can’t really be judged accurately because it exists in my head only, but for me there’s are a few options and it depends how CA approaches it.

    Trains could be applied like they were in FotS as a way of moving troops around quickly, it was an interesting late tech which could be given early on in major industrialised areas.

    Although we can never know how viable Victoria is compared to other options at the very least I’d say it’s viable.

    Yeah balancing will be a problem, they have made good strides with the 3K mechanics though for that. So taking it they resolve the other issues such as the province count that could open up easier balancing. It's effectively taking the Paradox style I guess.

    Bring back the zoning of Empire, have Europe be more detailed like is rather typical of grand strat games and then that brings about some of the periods options for the great powers to try and balance each other. Sending one of your limited armies all the way to Africa to take a backwater province, building it up to have enough supply gives your rivals a chance else where. They invest in their economy in Europe and send an army to take a local province and before you know it there's an Imperial Germany kicking France. Helps keep it a bit more organic I guess.

    Yeah most factions would be either what's viewed as modern or modernising. Probably lack factions in Asia and Africa for the most part but there are plenty of nations that could be done for Europe and the Americas. Interesting take could be the new vassal system, India was technically under the control of the East India Company at the start.

    It is the issue I have with it, the side campaigns tend to be interesting but often a bit lacking. Without adding to the grand campaign they become borderline stand-alone games which is a bit disappointing. Does seem CAs tried to go away from that and move to the grand campaign set up such as the map expansions and start dates. But will still have limitations: going to be hard to include that many provinces for Italy to cover their war of unification or make things such as railways important in the ACW. Rivers might be hard to do as well, thinking of the R2 rivers like the Rhine where you could sail fleets up, going to be funny with a fleet of pre-dreadnoughts in the late game lol although that could be fixed with naval terrain, we have coastal and open ocean atm so make shallows maybe so deep drafts take penalties.

    Problem is the size of the map. It doesn't quite work that way if you don't have the province count. Also runs the issue of where they run, you would have them run all over the nation by the end, you'd want to be able to move quickly between the cities, the ports and your borders. it also wasn't the most user friendly system personally. Could also have issues with increasing it's scale as the time frame goes on. Techs making it quicker as new trains come in which should be easy to implement.

    ...

    Animations aren't really a limit of it, think they didn't even bother porting them for WHs firearms.

    Never said they would be. Could be a unique map asset if ambushed on a railway but that's just a terrain element like houses or the boats in the ports in 3K.

    No that is what it is. They lost but as the sandbox element is which factions will rise and fall, they hadn't been wiped out at the start of the game so can rise up and become the dominant power(s).

    And as I said previously they don't depending on how all the factions go. Just like in Empire TW the natives often don't get wiped out and sometimes do become local powers (had one game where Pueblo wiped the Spanish out from the North lol). But still they are going to be limited as none playable factions don't get huge amounts of detail and their main role will be early game threats.
    When it comes to balancing and dealing with the overly complex one of the best examples was one AI programme struggling with the scope of Empire while working almost perfectly with Shogun 2. I obviously think the overall quality as changed since this period and the scope of a global Victoria game can be built upon the use of DLC gradually, making the map larger, so CA has more control over the process.

    I like the idea of the choice to invade Africa and how much being controlled by political will rather on the pure choice of the player. Thinking about it I can imagine CA using the latest film on the African Amazon’s as a possible new faction, I’d need to look into it a bit more.

    As long as the side campaigns are done well they could be interesting. Add to that adding the Zulus, Amazons, Qing Dynasty, Māori to the map as AI could make things more interesting especially if you have to fight them with more limited troops. Also, it could be done in the style of the US, you build them up in the minor campaign until they are big enough to take part in the larger one. These would be more what if factions but judging by previous work it could be less of an issue.

    I’d like to see the ability to create an overall transport system, the best being a modern train for land and steam ships go the sea, this creates fast moving across the map. Building a rail system and having certain points that can be attacked could create unique battles. They could be part of a defensive system, I’m not sure when rail based artillery was used or became popular.

    In reference to the general concern of FotS being connected to the Shogun engine/game, I personally don’t see this as an issue either way. The same numbers can be used for range, firing speed etc and could be modified with better animations and effects.
  • general#2473general#2473 Registered Users Posts: 1
    Hmm i like to new total war like, Alexander the great campaign or
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178

    Dude, that's just kind of a ridiculous view to have about it.

    Of course CA isn't just going repeat what they did in Empire 1, as even the European factions were really limited by how limited the game engine and all that was back then. That's why the Native American factions sucked in Empire 1, because they couldn't do all that much but melee rush armies.

    My point is that CA will be able to do a LOT more with factions like the Qing or Native American tribes in an Empire 2 then they did in Empire 1, and that they won't just be NPC enemies to kill in far off lands.

    And I'm mainly thinking of the Empire 2 starting in the very late 1600s, like 1696 or so, and going to 1800 or 1812 at the latest.


    The Native American tribe factions SHOULD be forced to adapt and learn toward use more guerilla tactics and such with their armies, as that's not only how they changed their tactics historically, but it would also provide players with a much different playstyle to that of the Europeans, as it should be.

    And it's not like I want the Qing or other non European factions to rely on giant rushes of melee infantry or stuff like that either. I would actually like to see a faction like the Qing only have like 3 or 4 melee infantry at most, which would be more than enough for use in assaults and such, but that shouldn't be all they have.

    The point is that the Qing should be able to at least advance enough to where they can actually force European armies to have not completely one sided artillery duels that can leave stuff like their high quality cavalry to be able to be used effectively.


    The point is that stuff like the Qing, Mughals, and the Native American factions could and should all be their own unique playable factions in a Empire 2 as such a thing would allow for players to have actual different experiences playing them.

    It's not really. The engine didn't limit their additions for the time period. Yeah they couldn't do the uniform changes that happened during it but that really is just eye candy, the stat changes needed was handled fine.

    But again the same limitations will still apply. Native Americans wont be viable in a campaign covering even just the same land as in Empire 1. It's the reason they weren't playable in the base game, they didn't even add them with the DLC to the main campaign as they are not viable.

    Earlier still doesn't help those in the Americas and unless it goes till late Victorian it still wont make sense for expansion in to China.

    When it comes to balancing and dealing with the overly complex one of the best examples was one AI programme struggling with the scope of Empire while working almost perfectly with Shogun 2. I obviously think the overall quality as changed since this period and the scope of a global Victoria game can be built upon the use of DLC gradually, making the map larger, so CA has more control over the process.

    I like the idea of the choice to invade Africa and how much being controlled by political will rather on the pure choice of the player. Thinking about it I can imagine CA using the latest film on the African Amazon’s as a possible new faction, I’d need to look into it a bit more.

    As long as the side campaigns are done well they could be interesting. Add to that adding the Zulus, Amazons, Qing Dynasty, Māori to the map as AI could make things more interesting especially if you have to fight them with more limited troops. Also, it could be done in the style of the US, you build them up in the minor campaign until they are big enough to take part in the larger one. These would be more what if factions but judging by previous work it could be less of an issue.

    I’d like to see the ability to create an overall transport system, the best being a modern train for land and steam ships go the sea, this creates fast moving across the map. Building a rail system and having certain points that can be attacked could create unique battles. They could be part of a defensive system, I’m not sure when rail based artillery was used or became popular.

    In reference to the general concern of FotS being connected to the Shogun engine/game, I personally don’t see this as an issue either way. The same numbers can be used for range, firing speed etc and could be modified with better animations and effects.

    They did get better, although I do think the army cap to solve the AIs issues would be a pain for such a large expanse of space and the number of regions the big powers have to deal with.

    Problem for the DLC would be where do you cut from the base game? What does the DLC bring to the table? Could be they split that from it. Have the map expansion be free and unrelated to the DLCs for the most part and the DLC fleshing out other factions and a specific war.

    Do you mean The Woman King? If so that film is more fantasy than 3Ks Romance mode lol. There was a few long standing native empires in West Africa during the time frame, managed to give Europeans a kicking in a number of wars. Think they also did at least have some decent ships but got eclipsed by Europeans.

    Armoured trains got used pretty much from the ACW onwards but tended to be lighter guns for fitting on them. Didn't get the long range heavy railway guns till WW1.
  • Flavius96#8596Flavius96#8596 Registered Users Posts: 37
    I like the discussion. From what I see CA has a chance to get things right regardless of what historical era game they do. Wether it's totalwar Victoria, Empire 2, or Medieval 3. The mechanics they can implement from most recent games would help.
  • StefCot#1753StefCot#1753 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2
    I was just thinking about some M3, but just like it was done for Rome with Atilla, maybe a Medieval with Gengis Khan combining Europe, Asia and Middle East would be insanely great
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,082
    edited December 2022

    Dude, that's just kind of a ridiculous view to have about it.

    Of course CA isn't just going repeat what they did in Empire 1, as even the European factions were really limited by how limited the game engine and all that was back then. That's why the Native American factions sucked in Empire 1, because they couldn't do all that much but melee rush armies.

    My point is that CA will be able to do a LOT more with factions like the Qing or Native American tribes in an Empire 2 then they did in Empire 1, and that they won't just be NPC enemies to kill in far off lands.

    And I'm mainly thinking of the Empire 2 starting in the very late 1600s, like 1696 or so, and going to 1800 or 1812 at the latest.


    The Native American tribe factions SHOULD be forced to adapt and learn toward use more guerilla tactics and such with their armies, as that's not only how they changed their tactics historically, but it would also provide players with a much different playstyle to that of the Europeans, as it should be.

    And it's not like I want the Qing or other non European factions to rely on giant rushes of melee infantry or stuff like that either. I would actually like to see a faction like the Qing only have like 3 or 4 melee infantry at most, which would be more than enough for use in assaults and such, but that shouldn't be all they have.

    The point is that the Qing should be able to at least advance enough to where they can actually force European armies to have not completely one sided artillery duels that can leave stuff like their high quality cavalry to be able to be used effectively.


    The point is that stuff like the Qing, Mughals, and the Native American factions could and should all be their own unique playable factions in a Empire 2 as such a thing would allow for players to have actual different experiences playing them.

    It's not really. The engine didn't limit their additions for the time period. Yeah they couldn't do the uniform changes that happened during it but that really is just eye candy, the stat changes needed was handled fine.

    But again the same limitations will still apply. Native Americans wont be viable in a campaign covering even just the same land as in Empire 1. It's the reason they weren't playable in the base game, they didn't even add them with the DLC to the main campaign as they are not viable.

    Earlier still doesn't help those in the Americas and unless it goes till late Victorian it still wont make sense for expansion in to China.

    When it comes to balancing and dealing with the overly complex one of the best examples was one AI programme struggling with the scope of Empire while working almost perfectly with Shogun 2. I obviously think the overall quality as changed since this period and the scope of a global Victoria game can be built upon the use of DLC gradually, making the map larger, so CA has more control over the process.

    I like the idea of the choice to invade Africa and how much being controlled by political will rather on the pure choice of the player. Thinking about it I can imagine CA using the latest film on the African Amazon’s as a possible new faction, I’d need to look into it a bit more.

    As long as the side campaigns are done well they could be interesting. Add to that adding the Zulus, Amazons, Qing Dynasty, Māori to the map as AI could make things more interesting especially if you have to fight them with more limited troops. Also, it could be done in the style of the US, you build them up in the minor campaign until they are big enough to take part in the larger one. These would be more what if factions but judging by previous work it could be less of an issue.

    I’d like to see the ability to create an overall transport system, the best being a modern train for land and steam ships go the sea, this creates fast moving across the map. Building a rail system and having certain points that can be attacked could create unique battles. They could be part of a defensive system, I’m not sure when rail based artillery was used or became popular.

    In reference to the general concern of FotS being connected to the Shogun engine/game, I personally don’t see this as an issue either way. The same numbers can be used for range, firing speed etc and could be modified with better animations and effects.

    They did get better, although I do think the army cap to solve the AIs issues would be a pain for such a large expanse of space and the number of regions the big powers have to deal with.

    Problem for the DLC would be where do you cut from the base game? What does the DLC bring to the table? Could be they split that from it. Have the map expansion be free and unrelated to the DLCs for the most part and the DLC fleshing out other factions and a specific war.

    Do you mean The Woman King? If so that film is more fantasy than 3Ks Romance mode lol. There was a few long standing native empires in West Africa during the time frame, managed to give Europeans a kicking in a number of wars. Think they also did at least have some decent ships but got eclipsed by Europeans.

    Armoured trains got used pretty much from the ACW onwards but tended to be lighter guns for fitting on them. Didn't get the long range heavy railway guns till WW1.
    I imagine the use of limited armies within certain areas of Africa would work if it is further scripted, as the government would prefer you to take particular area and gain very particular resources. How strict this is would be based on the difficulty level.

    I found certain narrative DLCs as fun, especially if they can recreate the desperation of certain battles. There would be huge differences in scope as well as the ACW and Zulu campaigns couldn’t be any different in terms of scale. I originally disliked the idea of an ACW campaign but found the history very interesting. The idea of taking certain cities could grant various bonuses or take them away if lost.

    I’m unsure about the exact nature of historical accuracy but I imagine it’s of little difference to The Patriot or Braveheart. The important fact is that the particular civilisation was a major regional power and did break free from another similar power at its borders. It would certainly be a unique race to play and add some unique units.

    I think the difference between armoured and I amounted trains could create better defending armies or reduce the impact of loss of profits from raids.
    Post edited by davedave1124#4773 on
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431


    It's not really. The engine didn't limit their additions for the time period. Yeah they couldn't do the uniform changes that happened during it but that really is just eye candy, the stat changes needed was handled fine.

    But again the same limitations will still apply. Native Americans wont be viable in a campaign covering even just the same land as in Empire 1. It's the reason they weren't playable in the base game, they didn't even add them with the DLC to the main campaign as they are not viable.

    Earlier still doesn't help those in the Americas and unless it goes till late Victorian it still wont make sense for expansion in to China.

    But the same limitations DON'T still apply in the exact same ways.

    And can you just admit that you're obsessed with the European factions at this point?

    Because that's what it really seems like now.

    It's almost like you're that one kid who doesn't want any other toys in a game to possibly threaten the ones YOU like most, so you just keep saying that those others aren't viable and try to use the "historicalness" of it as an excuse.

    Because you're clearly trying to ignore examples of where such factions actually won battles, like in the French and Indian War. Which was nearly won by the French and their native allies.

    And I would personally think that the North American map expansion would go as far west as the Mississippi River and up north into parts of Canada proper, not just east coasts.


    But my point about such factions does still stand, whether YOU like it or not Commisar.

    CA would NOT just use the time and resources to make an Empire 2 that's purely focused on the European factions alone, as that would completely limit all of what they could do.

    Just accept that the fact that the TW Sandbox isn't just what YOU alone want it to be and get over it dude.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178

    I imagine the use of limited armies within certain areas of Africa would work if it is further scripted, as the government would prefer you to take particular area and gain very particular resources. How strict this is would be based on the difficulty level.

    I found certain narrative DLCs as fun, especially if they can recreate the desperation of certain battles. There would be huge differences in scope as well as the ACW and Zulu campaigns couldn’t be any different in terms of scale. I originally disliked the idea of an ACW campaign but found the history very interesting. The idea of taking certain cities could grant various bonuses or take them away if lost.

    I’m unsure about the exact nature of historical accuracy but I imagine it’s of little difference to The Patriot or Braveheart. The important fact is that the particular civilisation was a major power and did break free from another similar power at its borders. It would certainly be a unique race to play and add some unique units.

    I think the difference between armoured and I amounted trains could create better defending armies or reduce the impact of loss of profits from raids.

    Not sure they would go with an artificial limit on what you can send, I don't think it would be popular either in the community to have only X units allowed to go to Africa out of the hundreds you have. Could also be an issue in balance, unless the local forces are scripted as well to keep the numbers working. Would seem simpler to keep it open plan but also historical by forcing the tactical choices they faced in period.

    Would think the battles would remain for the historical battle section. As a DLC it is rather limited with two factions in those. German/Italian wars of unification would give more options.

    It's very different to it. The kingdom was built on slavery and became a power thanks to the triangle trade. They began to fall once Britain abolished slavery and started to blockade ports conducting it in Africa. That caused them to lose power and value and then they lost the few wars against Europeans that they fought. It's a pretty bad example of an empire in a good position in the time frame.

    Maybe armoured trains and cars could be a passive tech that also lowers unrest with repression.

    But the same limitations DON'T still apply in the exact same ways.

    And can you just admit that you're obsessed with the European factions at this point?

    Because that's what it really seems like now.

    It's almost like you're that one kid who doesn't want any other toys in a game to possibly threaten the ones YOU like most, so you just keep saying that those others aren't viable and try to use the "historicalness" of it as an excuse.

    Because you're clearly trying to ignore examples of where such factions actually won battles, like in the French and Indian War. Which was nearly won by the French and their native allies.

    And I would personally think that the North American map expansion would go as far west as the Mississippi River and up north into parts of Canada proper, not just east coasts.


    But my point about such factions does still stand, whether YOU like it or not Commisar.

    CA would NOT just use the time and resources to make an Empire 2 that's purely focused on the European factions alone, as that would completely limit all of what they could do.

    Just accept that the fact that the TW Sandbox isn't just what YOU alone want it to be and get over it dude.

    Yes they do. Again unless they are going to go a fantasy route. The Europeans are the main powers of the time period so they need to be able to compete with them, they can't. That's why they had their own campaign in Empire.

    No it's the same reason they weren't playable in the first empire and a rule even you say needs to exist, they need to be a viable faction. In game only being able to play on a fraction of the map isn't viable. They have no naval units and the Europeans are closer in technology to atomic bombs than North American tribes were to competitive ocean going ships.

    The French and Indian wars was never nearly won by the natives and the French, they beat back the frontier forts which wasn't a major victory and lead to it being a stalemate for the most part as neither could advance on land, so the British went by sea which the natives and French couldn't really do anything about.

    It's not whether I like it or not, it's what CA has done in the past and the issue still stands since then. They have no navy and no naval tradition, they can't work being limited to only a small section of the map.

    They will follow the same rules they've done previously, the faction needs to be viable and on a grand campaign they wouldn't be without either A changing how their victory conditions work so they don't need to interact with the rest of the world or B they go fantasy and give them competitive ships.

    Again that's you. This is still a sandbox like is has always been.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,082
    I’m terms the popularity of an idea that doesn’t exist there’s no obvious answer. The game would have both total freedom in certain areas and limitations in others. The entire concept of small professional armies taking on numerous natives is a popular one. However, an objective answer to how popular something would be isn’t on the cards. I’d be happy with it but, I can’t speak for a million other players. It maybe more simple but then, it maybe a lot less interesting. It would mean the entire map would invade Africa in less numbers which would stop obvious snowballing, especially in Africa. It’s an area that would allow the player to experience something closer to the reality of Empire, you never have as many troops as you like when invading a new place.

    I don’t think there’d be any issue with popularity in reference to a Zulu Wars and a ACW DLC. They could be both narrative campaigns and both would be finely balanced.

    I don’t think it’s any different to the far fetched ideas The Patriot or Braveheart. It’s a warlike Empire that uses European weapons through trade of slaves, however, it makes money from conquest as well and uses slaves to support its own farming production. Rather thank looking at how realistic the particular film is what’s important here is this country is a viable faction for a VTW game. Do not get bogged down with what exactly happened historically, CA don’t care. If they see an interesting faction that allows alternative histories they’ll do it. Dahomey could work as a local power, beating local kingdoms and balancing diplomacy with France.

    Yes, CA often use tech that has nothing to do with the actual benefits as seen in the game.



  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431
    edited December 2022


    Yes they do. Again unless they are going to go a fantasy route. The Europeans are the main powers of the time period so they need to be able to compete with them, they can't. That's why they had their own campaign in Empire.

    No it's the same reason they weren't playable in the first empire and a rule even you say needs to exist, they need to be a viable faction. In game only being able to play on a fraction of the map isn't viable. They have no naval units and the Europeans are closer in technology to atomic bombs than North American tribes were to competitive ocean going ships.

    The French and Indian wars was never nearly won by the natives and the French, they beat back the frontier forts which wasn't a major victory and lead to it being a stalemate for the most part as neither could advance on land, so the British went by sea which the natives and French couldn't really do anything about.

    It's not whether I like it or not, it's what CA has done in the past and the issue still stands since then. They have no navy and no naval tradition, they can't work being limited to only a small section of the map.

    They will follow the same rules they've done previously, the faction needs to be viable and on a grand campaign they wouldn't be without either A changing how their victory conditions work so they don't need to interact with the rest of the world or B they go fantasy and give them competitive ships.

    Again that's you. This is still a sandbox like is has always been.

    Oh cut the crap Commisar!

    I'm starting to get kind of sick of you trying to act like YOU alone have the authority to say what is or isn't valid historically or valid for a TW game, because you have no such authority, so quit acting like you do.

    And not everything YOU don't like is the "fantasy route" either.


    And don't try to diminish what one side was capable of just because you're obsessed with the European factions.

    Even if the war was fought to a stalemate, the FACT that the French, who were outnumbered at least 10 or even 20 to 1 by the British in North America back then, and their native allies were able to fight to stupid "modern" British of the time to a standstill actually helps my argument more than yours, as it just proves that they could stand a chance.

    But the FACTS are that, if used right, many of the armies of other nations could actually fight the European ones, especially in a TW game.


    But what you're trying to do is trying to use only extremes as if they're the norm, which just makes you look incredibly desperate to sound right.

    YOU all but try to act like all the Native Americans can do is simply banzai charge straight at the European lines, all while getting blasted to pieces.

    That's just plain ridiculous to say the least.

    You're DILIBERATELY trying to downplay any possible strengths that non European factions have just to prop up the European factions, completely ignoring any weaknesses the European armies may have had.

    Quit trying to so blatantly play favorites Commisar, it's not a good look to have.
  • Flavius96#8596Flavius96#8596 Registered Users Posts: 37

    I was just thinking about some M3, but just like it was done for Rome with Atilla, maybe a Medieval with Gengis Khan combining Europe, Asia and Middle East would be insanely great

    Yes! That would be awesome.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431

    And before you say anything Commisar, really think about what I'm about to say.


    I mean really, what do you expect those other sorts of non European factions to really be, the super easy mode factions?

    It would and above all SHOULD all be about the smart use of actual STRATEGY and TACTICS.

    I mean, it's pretty obvious that the Native Americans tribes' factions are going to have some major disadvantages, as they don't exactly have mountains of guns or even armor to make use of, so players should absolutely HAVE to learn to use their brains with most factions. The Native American factions would just be a bit of an extreme case, but still a viable one.

    These are freaking strategy games after all.

    The point of many of these other non European factions is to give different tactical options so that the game doesn't eventually shrivel up and die because all the playable factions are practically the same, which is what would happen if YOU had your way with an Empire 2.

    Because like it or not Commisar, the guys at CA are smart enough to understand that they NEED to have interesting and unique factions so that people will have more reason to come back and play their games more often.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,178

    I’m terms the popularity of an idea that doesn’t exist there’s no obvious answer. The game would have both total freedom in certain areas and limitations in others. The entire concept of small professional armies taking on numerous natives is a popular one. However, an objective answer to how popular something would be isn’t on the cards. I’d be happy with it but, I can’t speak for a million other players. It maybe more simple but then, it maybe a lot less interesting. It would mean the entire map would invade Africa in less numbers which would stop obvious snowballing, especially in Africa. It’s an area that would allow the player to experience something closer to the reality of Empire, you never have as many troops as you like when invading a new place.

    I don’t think there’d be any issue with popularity in reference to a Zulu Wars and a ACW DLC. They could be both narrative campaigns and both would be finely balanced.

    I don’t think it’s any different to the far fetched ideas The Patriot or Braveheart. It’s a warlike Empire that uses European weapons through trade of slaves, however, it makes money from conquest as well and uses slaves to support its own farming production. Rather thank looking at how realistic the particular film is what’s important here is this country is a viable faction for a VTW game. Do not get bogged down with what exactly happened historically, CA don’t care. If they see an interesting faction that allows alternative histories they’ll do it. Dahomey could work as a local power, beating local kingdoms and balancing diplomacy with France.

    Yes, CA often use tech that has nothing to do with the actual benefits as seen in the game.

    We can find it though, look at how the market has responded to similar gameplay choices and it's been shown not to be popular. It would still be possible for a small professional army to take on large numbers of natives, just not being crippled to random limit set by the AI rather than how you play. Good example, late game you've conquered all of Europe and Asia, you have dozens of armies now stationed across North Africa and Arabia but instead of getting to advance in to Africa you now can only deploy 1 army to East, West and South Africa...because game says no?

    There's far easier and more historical ways to keep it balanced in Africa. Snowballing also wouldn't be an issue either unless CA fails in building the entire world and the AI. We have multiple mechanics to bring obstacles that can be overcome if you want which is good game development than just limiting it for the sake of limits. Early on the tech advantage of Europeans isn't that great so they would need more forces, but they also struggle with the lack of supplies and disease making large European forces ineffective to deploy. Africa was also of really low value, it' questioned now if it was profitable, in game that would also seem likely with a time period based off the industrialisation capturing an undeveloped backwater is going to be a cash sink rather than a cash cow.

    ACW yeah could be, Zulus not so much. Even splitting up the weapons the Zulus had would mean only like 3 units and then just hiding behind hills to draw the British in rather than letting them get shot to hell.

    It would be akin to having Braveheart where William Wallace was fighting for the English to subjugate the Scots lol. So yeah not a good film to use as an example of it and the combat in the area. Probably also not a faction CA would want to have representing the region, an African faction fighting to break the blockade to open up the international slave trade, to expand it within Africa and also expand their human sacrificing (wasn't as big as some make out but was still a bit of a thing)...might cause back lash.


    Oh cut the crap Commisar!

    I'm starting to get kind of sick of you trying to act like YOU alone have the authority to say what is or isn't valid historically or valid for a TW game, because you have no such authority, so quit acting like you do.

    And not everything YOU don't like is the "fantasy route" either.


    And don't try to diminish what one side was capable of just because you're obsessed with the European factions.

    Even if the war was fought to a stalemate, the FACT that the French, who were outnumbered at least 10 or even 20 to 1 by the British in North America back then, and their native allies were able to fight to stupid "modern" British of the time to a standstill actually helps my argument more than yours, as it just proves that they could stand a chance.

    But the FACTS are that, if used right, many of the armies of other nations could actually fight the European ones, especially in a TW game.


    But what you're trying to do is trying to use only extremes as if they're the norm, which just makes you look incredibly desperate to sound right.

    YOU all but try to act like all the Native Americans can do is simply banzai charge straight at the European lines, all while getting blasted to pieces.

    That's just plain ridiculous to say the least.

    You're DILIBERATELY trying to downplay any possible strengths that non European factions have just to prop up the European factions, completely ignoring any weaknesses the European armies may have had.

    Quit trying to so blatantly play favorites Commisar, it's not a good look to have.

    No, firstly it's CA that's done it. Again feel free to play Empire grand campaign. Secondly, you regularly say that factions are or aren't viable so if you can do that so can anyone else big one being always saying that factions aren't viable in a Victorian based TW, despite them doing exactly like the native Americans and winning battles and even wars against Europeans.

    No giving the Native Americans tech to travel to different continents would be fantasy. They hadn't developed much in naval tech. So yeah having them jump several millennia to make them viable is going to be fantasy OR it's going to directly go against what you claim to not want and they just get European ships.

    It's not diminishing what they are capable of, it's the historical record.

    They weren't. Population numbers of the colonies sure, soldiers in the combat zone? Nope. Battles were fought where each side out numbered the other quite often, neither being able to deploy large numbers as it was the frontier of their colonies and didn't have the infrastructure to do so. And no it doesn't. Them acting as support for both sides backs up CA and how they've already covered the time period. They still didn't win a single naval battle against the British or French and that was the key to fighting a war in North America.

    And again ever said they couldn't. You have with the Victorian period, even though multiple none European nations won battles and even wars without the direct help of another European nation. The key is the naval element. Why they weren't playable in the first Empire and still don't fit a second one. It's not viable in the current TW format to limit a faction to only being able to play on a fraction of the map.

    And again no I don't. I've never said that. I've specifically said otherwise but it's something you've repeatedly said about the Victorian age and inability to use units right.

    You're doing hat for time frame, I'm being logical here.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431

    Quit trying to put words in my mouth Commisar.

    I NEVER ONCE said ANYTHING about the Native Americans being able to go overseas or anything, YOU are.

    The whole challenge of the Native Americans is SUPPOSED to be in the challenge of driving the Europeans and such out of their lands and holding onto it and all that kind of stuff. It would be more than enough of a great victory for them to do that.

    Yeah, I'm sure someone would and probably will make a mod that grants the Native American factions in an Empire 2 a bunch of ships of the line and such, and that would be perfectly fine, but they wouldn't have such stuff in the base game.


    And I'm also not talking about the stupid Victorian era, but an Empire 2 set in mainly the 1700s.

    I thought that mentioning the freaking French and Indian War might've made that clear, but I guess not.


    Quit trying to twist someone's words to suit your own argument just because you have no real arguments to make.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,035

    Quit trying to put words in my mouth Commisar.

    I NEVER ONCE said ANYTHING about the Native Americans being able to go overseas or anything, YOU are.

    The whole challenge of the Native Americans is SUPPOSED to be in the challenge of driving the Europeans and such out of their lands and holding onto it and all that kind of stuff. It would be more than enough of a great victory for them to do that.

    Yeah, I'm sure someone would and probably will make a mod that grants the Native American factions in an Empire 2 a bunch of ships of the line and such, and that would be perfectly fine, but they wouldn't have such stuff in the base game.


    And I'm also not talking about the stupid Victorian era, but an Empire 2 set in mainly the 1700s.

    I thought that mentioning the freaking French and Indian War might've made that clear, but I guess not.


    Quit trying to twist someone's words to suit your own argument just because you have no real arguments to make.
    Being unable to counter other faction wouldn't feel great, like they can send ships your way but you can't do the same would be fine at the start but then would start to become annoying. Further more for the Map painters
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431


    Being unable to counter other faction wouldn't feel great, like they can send ships your way but you can't do the same would be fine at the start but then would start to become annoying. Further more for the Map painters

    Well, we talking about a historical TW game, and just giving the likes of the Native American tribes a bunch of ships of the line would be pretty unrealistic.

    And it's not so much about the Native Americans not being able to counter the Europeans, but more so that giving a great challenge that is uniquely their own. Because playing as the Native Americans SHOULD be a far more challenging campaign than most other factions, as they do lack in a lot of ways.

    And yeah, maybe they can't be able to stop the Europeans and such from sending over armies with their navies, but the idea should be the campaign map is pretty darn big and doing such things shouldn't be a super easy thing to do, certainly not impossible, but just not super easy.

    But the point is that the campaign map, at least in North America should stretch from the east coast regions to roughly where the Mississippi River is and north and south from there. And that may not seem like all that much area, but it is when you consider the time period they game should take place in, but I'm sure you get the idea.

    The point of the Native Americans as playable factions isn't to make them like ten times as powerful as the Europeans, but certainly being capable of holding their own if used right.
This discussion has been closed.